I am led to believe that many Tracker readers will be watching election returns tonight instead of roaming through the Tracker's archives, looking for the crankiest, funniest, or most astute posts of yesteryear. (For some reason, Nate Silver did not find it within his means to predict what Tracker readers would...
Category: retractions
I am led to believe that many Tracker readers will be watching election returns tonight instead of roaming through the Tracker's archives, looking for the crankiest, funniest, or most astute posts of yesteryear. (For some reason, Nate Silver did not find it within his means to predict what Tracker readers would be doing tonight, so I can't back this up with data.)
So I'm conceding the evening, even before the polls close. You win. But while you're publishing your own cranky, funny, or astute election comments on Twitter or FB, I thought you might like a little diversion. Here are a few things to scan while waiting for Ohio to come in:
--Adam Mann at Wired likes the new Google Mars, which has "more coverage, more detail, and...
Carl Zimmer is up on the web today at The New York Times, writing about a study that challenges the "comforting assumption"...
Carl Zimmer is up on the web today at The New York Times, writing about a study that challenges the "comforting assumption" that scientific retractions are mostly due to honest error.
The study's authors analyzed 2,047 retracted papers in biomedicine and the life sciences and concluded that fraud and suspected fraud were misconduct was behind three-quarters of the retractions for which they could determine the cause.
This is indeed discomfiting news. You might think that science preferentially draws people who are honest and curious, and who are smart enough to recognize that cheating in science is a bad bet. Not every case of scientific cheating or fraud is uncovered, but plenty of them are. This study and Zimmer's account remind us that while...
7Aug 2012
Retraction Watch, the essential blog by Ivan Oransky of Reuters and Adam Marcus, just celebrated its second birthday. That's two years of pursuing retractions, demanding that editors be transparent about why they retracted papers, and making a...
Retraction Watch, the essential blog by Ivan Oransky of Reuters and Adam Marcus, just celebrated its second birthday. That's two years of pursuing retractions, demanding that editors be transparent about why they retracted papers, and making a fuss if they don't. (For more on the site's anniversary, see this interview with Oransky at The Scholarly Kitchen.)
You might think that there are not enough retractions to justify a blog on the topic, but my careful research has revealed the following: Since Retraction Watch was launched, there seem to be many, many more retractions than I remember reading about before. The conclusion is clear: Retraction Watch is the cause of the current epidemic of retractions.
I'm sorry to say, however, that...
©2010 Knight Science Journalism at MIT. All Rights Reserved.